Taxation as Looting

asset forfeiture

Chicago Tribune 01DEC1932

So the People’s Party got 9% of the vote in 1892, then the Democratic Party copied the Communist Manifesto income tax plank into their own platform. So… what came next, once the Progressive Party levered its passage?

Chapter 9

Manley Sullivan

            A Carolina bootlegger and car dealer named Manley Sullivan was convicted of income tax evasion, but appealed to the Fourth Circuit Court in 1926. Sullivan claimed that since bootlegging was illegal, filing tax returns for it would amount to self-incrimination prohibited by the Fifth Amendment. Sullivan won on appeal October 19 of 1926, but Assistant Attorney General Mabel Willebrandt appealed the Circuit Court’s decision, and the Supreme Court granted a hearing March 7, 1927.

The actual date on which attorney Manley Sullivan (or Manly Sullivan, records are inconsistent)  was originally charged, and in what location, is one of the most tightly-held secrets in American jurisprudence.  Federal Reserve bank balances (in millions) began falling nationwide when the decision freeing Sullivan under the 5th Amendment was struck down by the Supreme Court. Source, Lawrence, 1929. The nation’s economy at the time was roughly $100 billion in gold, and the Federal budget about $4 billion.

FRB reserves accelerated when the 5th Amendment was upheld in 1926, then began falling after the conviction was reinstated

The trial ended on May 16, 1927, reversing the appeals court decision and effectively nullifying the Fifth Amendment.[1] This time the dip in stock prices was much smaller. For one thing the discount rate had been carefully lowered since September of 1926, disguising somewhat any stock market effects.[2] On the heels of the Sullivan decision came the Marron case, in which the Supreme Court approved the use of a San Francisco speakeasy proprietor’s illegally seized books and records. Marron was also argued by Mabel Willebrandt and her victory eliminated what Fourth Amendment protection had survived the wartime Espionage Act.[3] Revenue agents were empowered to seize records and force confessions at will, eliminating the ditty of the times:

My sister sells snow to the snow-birds
My father makes bootlegger gin,
My mother sells love for a living,
My God! how the money rolls in.
My brother’s a big missionary
He saves little girlies from sin
He’ll save you a blonde for five dollars
My God! how the money rolls in.

 

[1] (U.S. v. Sullivan 5/16/27 274 U.S. 259)

[2] (Lawrence 1929 286-289)

[3] (Willebrandt 1929 241) (Marron v. United States 11/21/27 275 U.S. 192)

League of Looter Nations, 1929

After President Harding and the Senate said no, the League of European stupefacient warmongers limped on without us. So what happened? Here is an excerpt from Prohibition and the Crash by J Henry Phillips

Chapter 12

The League of Nations

            On the international front the State Department Division of Far Eastern Affairs had approvingly read the Geneva Opium Convention of 1925, and lent a sympathetic ear to the so-called Scheme of Stipulated Supply. The idea was to use futures trading for all legal narcotics procurements. The effect would be to greatly limit production for the illegal market.[1] The World Anti-Narcotic Union had held a gala meeting early in March and obtained verbal support from Governor Al Smith, Mayor Jimmy Walker and Italian dictator Benito Mussolini—but nothing was actually done.[2]

Since 1924 Pennsylvania Congressman Stephen G. Porter had been an influential figure in U.S. drug negotiations with the League of Nations. But the man was a mystical pedant and alienated League members (See and compare A.G. Sessions). Indeed, it was on Porter’s motion that the American delegation to the Geneva conference had petulantly withdrawn from the Convention of 1925. The truth was that delegates from India, Turkey and Persia understood perfectly well that any sudden curbs on opium production would bring on acute economic crises and political instability in their countries. Porter understood none of this and stormed out in a huff, convinced of the foreign delegates’ insincerity. Even before the Great War German chemical interests had struggled against curbs on drugs, and not without reason.[3]

 

[1] (Taylor 1969 211, 228) (Eisenlohr 1934 129)

[2] (NYT 3/8/28 8)

[3] (Taylor 1969 178-9, 184; 193, 201, 107-8, 213) (Eisenlohr 1934 227, 231, 256-7)

 

Voter Comparison Shopping

When was the last time you saw political party platform planks compared? The entrenched Kleptocracy parties both claimed to be different in 2016. Are they?

The Democrats still want your kids incarcerated for marijuana, only now they want to class it in the same category as methamphetamine and cocaine instead of heroin. The Libertarian Party is against sending men with guns to kick down doors–especially when no harm has been done to merit such violence. The Republican Party wants that Old Testament Prohibitionism that caused most of our financial crashes and economic depressions. Sound farfetched? Exaggerated?

Here is the 2016 straddle plank the Democratic party added to its lengthy platform by the narrowest of margins before choosing a candidate:

Because of conflicting federal and state laws concerning marijuana, we encourage the federal government to remove marijuana from the list of “Schedule 1″ federal controlled substances and to appropriately regulate it, providing a reasoned pathway for future legalization.

Here is the Libertarian plank that covers policy on marijuana:

The prescribed role of government is to protect the rights of every individual including the right to life, liberty and property. Criminal laws should be limited in their application to violations of the rights of others through force or fraud, or to deliberate actions that place others involuntarily at significant risk of harm. Therefore, we favor the repeal of all laws creating “crimes” without victims, such as the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes. [Banned from televised debates]

Here is the Republican plank on some drugs:

The progress made over the last three decades against drug abuse is eroding, whether for cultural reasons or for lack of national leadership. In many jurisdictions, marijuana is virtually legalized despite its illegality under federal law. At the other end of the drug spectrum, heroin use nearly doubled from 2003 to 2013, while deaths from heroin have quadrupled. All this highlights the continuing conflicts and contradictions in public attitudes and public policy toward illegal substances. Congress and a new administration should consider the long- range implications of these trends for public health and safety and prepare to deal with the problematic consequences.

True, the Dems pretend to believe they can repeal the Second Amendment, enact Kristallnacht laws, abolish guns and turn These States into a banana republic or European satrapy. And the GO-Pee platform flatly asserts it wants to change the 14th Amendment so that “All Persons Born” will again be interpreted to mean “All Ova Fertilized,” everywhere, not just in Dixieland as it was before the Libertarian Party electoral vote earned in December of 1972. That vote led to the Roe v. Wade decision recognizing that pregnant women have individual rights in January 1973. (Yep. Libertarian spoiler votes have been vacating bad jurisprudence for 45 years). Their biggest mistake was to cave in to Green Watermelon spoiler votes aimed at making electricity generation more difficult and expensive than it already is. That is the only real difference between the GOP-Tea Party-Klan and the DEM-Green-CPUSA United Fronts.

There is no difference between being flung in jail or shot by conscience-stricken Democrats or lustily bragging Republicans.  Both want hemp users arrested by the violence of law–that, fines and imprisonment are what their platforms offer voters–and visit upon those too young to vote or buy beer. Prohibition laws are marketing tools passed and enforced for a profit that is well-hidden from view. They distort the supply and demand curves to raise prices; that is the purpose of all marketing.

If you are surprised that these precursors to legislation are what make the laws, try not to be surprised by bad translations of legal material in court.  A competent court interpreter can be as valuable as a competent attorney in defense of your rights.

 

 

 

1931 Moratorium on Brains

Christian altruists

Herbert Hoover in 1938 meeting with results of 1931 Moratorium

In 1931 Republican President Herbert Hoover and drug czar Harry Anslinger were pressuring Germany into additional curbs on heroin exportation while semisocialist Germany’s victims were demanding reparations payments under the Treaty of Versailles (which the US did not ratify, but which still involved $10 trillion in gold).

Hoover’s error is relevant to ongoing efforts to extricate These States from the Vichy Paris carbon tax extortion the Obama Administration tried to smuggle past the Senate. Already there is a severe shortage of nuclear power plants in These States–which is the whole reason engineers are forced to rely on coal–which is less clean and less safe by comparison. The Paris Capitulation can only benefit Communist China at the expense of the relatively free world. 

As 1931 stupefacient drug prohibition negotiations proceeded, banks in Germany and Austria failed. Depositors were removing their money because they knew the influx of dope money would stop, but reparations claims were persistent. Hoover’s brilliant idea was to let France, Britain, Italy, Russia and others “temporarily” default on war loans payable to the USA. In exchange, they would let Christian altruist Germany default on reparations payments owed to the USA. That was the lose-lose theory of coercive prohibitionism. What happened under the Moratorium was that Germany kept exporting addictive poisons and using the money to build up the Steel Helmets, build submarines and battleships and entrench the National Socialist party. Immediately all of Europe began defaulting on war debts, and even commercial loans of private US capital.

socialism is socialism

Mystical collectivists elect Nazis, thanks to Hoover

Ayn Rand was a Hollywood writer and reader hanging out with pre-code movie stars like Barbara Stanwyck, watching Three on a Match (with husband Frank O’Connor), Scarface, Night Nurse (bootlegger hero), Dinner at Eight, The Secret Six and old Alma Rubens movies. At age 24, newlywed immigrant Ayn Rand was certainly aware of Russian and German anti-jewish fanaticism. All of America was painfully aware of Hoover’s solicitous concern for The Accursed Hun.

The smart Moratorium in Atlas Shrugged is Hank Rearden voluntarily offering rail on credit to Taggart Transcontinental. The dumb Moratorium in 1931 was Hoover helping Hitler’s backers arm and control Germany’s government. To this Ayn Rand drew too vague an analogy with the Moratorium on Brains in Atlas. Nor did she clarify the connection, possibly for fear of weakening Barry Goldwater’s GOP while the Soviet still existed. Dwight Eisenhower was, after all, the conquering Republican president of both These States and the Government of Occupation, and Richard Nixon was his vice-president and anticommunist Wingman when Atlas Shrugged was finally published. But the book was already in its tenth chapter in 1947, when Christian National Socialists were denying ever having so much as suspected that Henry Ford’s Fuehrer’s promise to “extirpate” jewish egoism in Mein Kampf was anything but a joke. That was the year Rand composed the Non-Aggression Pledge. That tersely-worded individual decision established a modern ethical position consistent with the era of mature nuclear physics.

I also produce articles in Portuguese, using Brazilian historical sources at http://www.faloingles.com or http://www.expatriotas.blogspot.com

Brennt Paris?

France, of course, surrenders to German National Socialism at every opportunity. This 1940 French Translation of Mein Kampf (as Mon Combat–My Struggle) appears in the first 5 minutes of the 1966 movie Brennt Paris? The movie shows Parisians mostly riding bicycles, with the wealthy saving gas driving those horse-drawn Hoovercarts used in America during Prohibition After the Crash. The Occupation of Paris was Ecological National Socialism in black & white.

But France’s own media set them up for permanent obloquy in the Fawlty Towers Pantheon of Pathetic Poltroons. Seen this French hagiography of the current International Socialist Chanceller of Germany? It’s not all that different from Time Magazine thrice putting another nationalistic, Socialist German Chancellor on its cover a few decades ago. At least two such Chancellors made Time’s Person of the Year. Back in 1938 the Chancellor’s crowds shouted Raus juden! Today it’s Keine Atomkraftwerks!

If votes count for anything, America still prefers to keep electric power safe, legal and abundant. No Nukes, Nuclear Disarmament, Surrender to Soviet, Ban Coal, Ban Fracking, and other Gaian collectivist shibboleths notwithstanding.

But the Democratic party digs itself deeper and deeper into the pseudoscience of ecological national socialism. This cost them the votes of many who also want an end to the Republican régime of prohibitory televangelist pseudoscience, mass incarceration, cops shooting children and asset-forfeiture looting. The Democratic Party platform committee made the bed those loser politicians and their frustrated supporters get to lie in. They lie awake hearing God’s Own Prohibitionists Make Amerika Grate Again.

This appeals hugely to Libertarians. Unlike the socialist-prohibitionist DemoGOP, our platform says to relegalize self-medication, free the victimless-yet-persecuted from prisons and expunge their records. We seek to ABOLISH most taxes & regulations and all wars soon. Every Libertarian vote forces looter politicians to repeal or modify at least 6 times as many rights-destroying usurpations now masquerading as laws–or lose their seats.  Libertarian spoiler votes cover the gap between the main looter parties, and currently swing 90 electoral votes in major elections.

So Democrats, why not heat up some tar, cut open a few pillowcases and throw an outdoor party for your former platform committeemembers? Teach their replacements to spell R-E-P-E-A-L. Who knows? Maybe you can get jobs for some of your ward heelers and a hand in the till to boot? Failing that, try voting Libertarian instead: the other parties offer you warmunists, bureaucrats and politicians, we offer you freedom.

Did this help clarify why the US  need not sacrifice taxpayer earnings on the altar of pseudoscience?  Clarity is what many people want in their translations. This is why I have repeat customers. I look out for their pocketbooks.

 

1929 Stock Market Crash One

Chapter 46

The First Stock Market Crash

looters-by-law

Chicago Tribune 27MAR1929

On March 26, 1929, Al Capone was still sequestered for the federal grand jury as ordered by Judge Wilkerson, and the U.S. Attorney had sent a federal raiding party to the Lexington and Metropole hotels to seize Capone’s records. Although ostensibly over fallout from the Chicago Heights raids, Assistant United States District Attorney Daniel Anderson nonetheless asked the famous entrepreneur point-blank: “What is your business?”

“I must stand on my constitutional rights and refuse to answer anything particular about that,” was Capone’s answer. Al was charged with contempt and a warrant issued the following day. Health problems as a pretext for avoiding the courtroom had been successfully invoked by Jew-baiting magnate Henry Ford just two years earlier, but the court extended no such privilege to young Al Capone.[1] The market crashed with a record turnover of over 8 million shares on March 26, 1929.[2] Wall Street sources reported that Chicago banks withdrew substantial sums from Wall Street to meet credit exigencies in the “Middle West.” This announcement would be repeated in even stranger circumstances by Herbert Hoover before the year was out.[3]

Wall Street Journal headlines on March 27 glumly described severe declines on the “largest volume of dealings ever known.” Time Magazine chimed right in, announcing “the biggest stock market crash in Coolidge-Hoover history.” Some of the cash movement had to do with income tax payments—which back then were due March 1—and some with quarterly government financing. Indeed, call money bounced back up to 14% at the close of March. News came in of increased opium trade in China precisely coinciding with a new wave of suppression there.[4]

Judge Winslow’s impeachment was gathering steam, with attorney Isidore Kresel scheduled to conduct an investigation beginning Monday. City Trust, Lancia motors and the late F.M. Ferrari were also back in the news over a disputed note, and George McManus—Rothstein murder “suspect”—was released on bail for want of a speedy trial.[5]

Again the Journal reported that there had been a “drastic movement of funds to Chicago to replace funds called in that City by local banks.”[6] This pattern would repeat itself time and time again before 1933, yet remain a mystery to economists and financiers for the next seventy years. Just how much of the March panic was due the various forms of prohibition we may never know. We do know, however, that this record-volume stock market crash occurred well before the tariff debate had even begun and after no interest rate increases by the Fed. Yet as the crash occurred, vigilantes closed in on Chicago racketeers, Al Capone fidgeted before Judge Wilkerson in a Federal courtroom interested in his income tax records, banks were caught financing bootleggers, League of Nations narcotics statistics reports were falling due, corporate magnates were tried without publicity or fanfare in a Buffalo star chamber and the Chicago-bound trunkful of drugs case slowly expanded into a conspiracy involving failed banks and other corporations. A pattern was taking shape.

The New York World scrupulously ignored the Illinois Alcohol trial, 73 subpoenas and all—yet covered the news of the following day’s “brief but violent tumble in stock prices.”

how credit contracts

Same day Chicago Tribune cartoon

Walter Strong, Publisher of the Chicago Daily News had visited President Hoover on March 19. Strong—together with Judge Frank Loesch of the Chicago Crime Commission—had given “chapter and verse for their statement that Chicago was in the hands of gangsters, that the police and magistrates were completely under their control, that the governor of the state was futile, that the Federal government was the only force by which the city’s ability to govern itself could be restored.” Thus spoke President Hoover, who at once gave orders that “all the Federal agencies at once concentrate upon Mr. Capone and his allies.” This was to be accomplished at once, without publicity and regardless of expense. Having thus ordered such Treasury agents as Eliot Ness and Elmer Irey unleashed upon Chicago’s shadow government, the President again turned his attention to the special session he’d been planning for Congress.[7]

If you had never heard of the March 1929 stock market crash, perhaps you have also never heard of court or financial interpreters for the Portuguese language.

[1] (Bergreen 1994 326) (Pasley 1930 73) (Lacey 1986 216-217)

[2] (Time Capsule 4/1/29 212)

[3] (WSJ 2/26/29; 3/27/29 1; 5/18/29 7)

[4] (NYT 3/31/29 III-6:2; 7/21/29 III-8:8)

[5] (NYT 2/26/29 24; 14) (NY World Almanac 1930 103)

[6] (WSJ 5/18/29 7)

[7] (Hoover Memoirs Vol. 2 277) (Myers & Newton 1936 376)

The Five and Ten Law, March, 1929

Light beer (and even sauerkraut) became a major federal felony 24 hours before Herbert Hoover, a lifelong teetotaler, placed his hand upon a religious tome and became President. 

Chapter 42

The Five and Ten

 Senator Wesley Livsey Jones of Washington—possibly the most fanatical prohibitionist in the upper Chamber—again pressed for his year-old “increased penalties” plan on February 19.[1] “Be it enacted,” he proposed in his bill, “That wherever a penalty or penalties are prescribed in criminal prosecution by the National Prohibition Act, as amended and supplemented, for the illegal manufacture, sale, transportation, importation or exportation of intoxicating liquor, as defined by Section 1, Title II of the National Prohibition Act, the penalty imposed for each such offense shall be a fine not to exceed $10,000 or imprisonment not to exceed five years, or both.”[2] The national media dubbed it the Five & Ten, but the Chicago Tribune preferred to call it the Jones Law.

The gauntlet was thrown. Drys, championed by Senator William A. Borah of Idaho, hailed it as essential to maintaining a constitutional form of government. Wets, led by Senator James A. Reed of Missouri, classed it as improper, unjust and cruel, and on raged the debate. The Tribune compared it to the Fugitive Slave Law, but the Senate passed it anyway, albeit with the added proviso that “it is the intent of Congress that the court, in imposing sentence hereunder, should discriminate between casual or slight violations and habitual sales of intoxicating liquor, or attempts to commercialize violations of the law.”[3]

The House passed it as it stood, and President Calvin Coolidge signed it into law just twenty-four hours before an optimistic Herbert Hoover was to blithely take an oath to enforce it. But Hoover wouldn’t let it go at that. To this lynch mob atmosphere of hysteria he added: “Of the undoubted abuses which have grown up under the 18th amendment, part are due to (…) the failure of some States to accept their share of the responsibility for concurrent enforcement and to the failure of many State and local officials to accept the obligation under their oath of office zealously to enforce the laws. With the failures from these many causes has come a dangerous expansion in the criminal elements who have found enlarged opportunities for dealing in illegal liquor. (…) I have been selected by you to execute and enforce the laws of the country. (…) To those of criminal mind there can be no appeal but vigorous enforcement of the law. Fortunately they are but a small percentage of our people. Their activities must be stopped.”[4]

A delegation from the Women’s Christian Temperance Union was photographed on the White House lawn. Herbert Hoover had lunch with Assistant Attorney General Mabel Walker Willebrandt, then met with Senator Morris Sheppard of corn-producing Texas, author of the 18th Amendment. Time called Hoover the “Dry Hope,” and those first few days in office seemed to confirm exactly that. Bootleggers took no comfort whatsoever, and some of them began to wonder whether they’d overstayed the market.

An excerpt from Prohibition and the Crash, by JHenryPhillips.com

[1] (NYT 3/24/29 27)

[2] (Time Capsule 3/4/29 66)

[3] (CT 2/19/29 1, 3, 2/21/29 12)

[4] (Hoover 1929 1974 2-10)